British Journal of Management, Vol.

6, Special Issue, S17PS29 (December 1995)

Operations management - from Taylor to
Toyota - andBeyond?
C. A. Voss
BT Professor of Total Quality Management, London Business School, UK
SUMMARY This paper sets out to review past and current research in operations management, and
to explore current and future issues facing the area. It reviews the history of the area,
and the patterns of research content and type. It reviews the evolution of lean production
connecting the work of Taylor to its development at Toyota, and uses this to propose
three key elements of operations management in the 1990s, namely, the core, interfaces
and convergence. Current issues relating to research in operations management are
explored and it is argued that there is a need for aggressive research agendas. Finally,
possible future agendas for the area are explored.
1. Operations Management - An
Historical Perspective
Operations management as we know it today
probably has its roots in two areas. The first is the
work of people such as Taylor and the Gilbreths.
The second is in the development of industrial
engineering. Associated with this is the perennial
concern with the development and adoption of
process technology. Man has been making things
throughout history, and concern with improving
processes and thcir management has been reflected
in writing from Agricola to Adam Smith. Follow-
ing the development of industrial engineering and
the refining of principles of mass production,
increasing attention was paid to the role of
production managers and the tasks and challenges
facing them. In the 1940s two parallel developments
brought a strong quantitative background to the
area. The first was the development of the discipline
of operations research which spread from its initial
application in the military to a widespread applica-
tion in business. Second was the work started by
Shewhart in the application of statistical principles
to process control and quality management. The
development of computing in the 60s and 70s led to
increasing focus of production planning and con-
trol and on computer integration of manufacturing.
Finally, studies by professors at Harvard of the
performance and policies of manufacturing com-
ccc l045-3172/95/0SOS17-13
0 1995 by J ohn Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
panies in particular industries led to the belief that
there was a strong link between choices in manu-
facturing and company strategies (Skinner, 1969).
Figure I illustrates how these initial influences have
led to many of the core concerns of operations
management.
By the 1980s the discipline of operations
management had become firmly established both
in the US and the UK. Reviews of the content of
operations management were conducted by a
number of people including Buffa (1980) and Voss
andnrds
.,...,-
Figure 1. The development of management (FMS, flex-
ible manufacturing systems; OR, operations research;
CIM, computer integrated manufacturing; MRP, manu-
facturing resource planning)
S18 c. A. Voss
Table 1. The content of operations management in the
1980s
Buffa Voss
(1980) (1 984)
Production planning and
Purchasing
Facilities
Process design
Process technology
J ob design, work organization
Organization structure
Management of technical change
Maintenance and reliability
Quality control
Work measurement
Manufacturing policy
Cost estimation
Systems approaches
Physical distribution
Service operations
inventory control X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
(1984). The results of these reviews are summarised
in Table 1. As can be seen there is a set of topics
that are familiar today and found in most standard
textbooks. In addition, there was considerable
focus on the use of analytical and quantitative
techniques in manufacturing, for example critical
path methods, linear programming, lot sizing, etc.
The 1980s Research Agenda
The establishment of a strong and distinctive
discipline was complete by the end of the 1970s.
By 1980 scholarly journals had been launched in
Table 2. Research agendas for the 1980s
the US, the Journal of Operations Management;
and in the UK, the International Journal of Oper-
ations and Production Management. This strength-
ening of the identity of operations management in
the 1980s led to a number of groups reviewing and
developing the research agendas for the area
(Chase 1980; Miller et al., 1981; Voss, 1984). Both
Miller in the US and Voss in the UK developed
very similar agendas; these are summarized in
Table 2. They both identified five areas of focus:
operations policy, which included manufacturing
strategy and identifying causes of success and
failure in operations; operations planning and
control where there was a major need for further
development and understanding of the newly
developed production planning and control sys-
tems; service operations, by the 1980s it had
become clear that operations management princi-
ples could be applied equally in services; produc-
tivity and technology, the early 1980s was
dominated by the rapid emergence of new manu-
facturing technologies and by the realization that
implementation was a serious managerial task;
quality, this was on both research agendas
although the full advent of total quality manage-
ment (TQM) had not been seen or anticipated.
Voss also recognized the advent of the J apanese
influence and included this in his research agenda.
Patterns of Research in Operations Management
The development of and debate on research
agendas in the early 1980s led to an increasing
Miller (1 98 1) Voss (1984)
Operations Strategies of successful firms Policy performance relations
policy Strategic decisions in technology Performance measurement
procedure and organization
Production Planning and Inventory Control
performance measurement and rewards
Identify transferable Japanese practices
Operations Design and implementation of MRP and supplier performance
control
Congruence of operational goals with
Service Managing customization
operations Positioning strategy
Non-manufacturing systems
Productivity Evaluation of emerging process technology Implementation
and technology Determinants of productivity Diffusion of innovations
Long-term implications of new technology Developing flexibility
Quality Quality of life Management structures to overcome
quality weakness
Opcrat ions Managemen t S19
Table 3. Ranking of frequency of research papers by type
of research
Rank us UK
Modelling Conceptual
Simulation Field
Conceptual Survey
Survey Case
Case Modelling
Field Simulation
~~ ~_ _ _ _ _ _ _
volume and variety of research in both the UK and
US. In the last few years there have been a number
of detailed reviews of this research (Amoako-
Gympah and Meredith, 1989; Neely, 1993; Heylen
and van Dierdonck, 1994; Minor et al., 1994). It is
not the intention of this paper to repeat their work
but it is instructive to review some of the key
patterns.
Over the past decade there would seem to have
been different patterns of research in the UK and
US. A review of papers published in the Journal of
Operations Management and the International
Journal of Operations and Production Management
shows sharp contrasts between US and UK
research types. When ranked by number of papers
of each research type, US publications are domi-
nated by modelling and simulation research with
69per cent of papers falling in these categories. UK
research on the other hand is dominated by
conceptual, field and case-based research, with 80
per cent of papers in these areas (see Table 3).
There are potential strengths and weaknesses
arising from the patterns in each country. US
research has been dominated by the quantitative
background of the subject and journals in that
country. It could be argued that US research in the
1980s was dominated by the 1970s research agenda
and failed to respond to the new challenges
identified by Miller and others. In particular the
lack of empirical research has come in for
increasing criticism. In 1989 the Journal of Opera-
tions Management had featured a call for empirical
research-based papers. In recent years there have
been a number of papers describing, discussing and
encouraging empirical and field research methods
(Flynn et al., 1990; Meredith et al., 1989; Meredith,
1993; Platts, 1993; Swamidass, 1991).
UK research on the other hand has been
strongly influenced by research funders such as
the Engineering and Physical Science Research
Council (formerly the Science and Engineering
Research Council) and industry. These have put
much emphasis on the need to have widespread
applicability in industry and on conducting
research in the field. As a result UK research
would seem to have been more reactive to the
research agendas of the 1980s. A review by the
author of the topics of papers in the International
Journal of Operations and Production Management,
dominated by European contributors is shown in
Table 4. In contrast to the US concerns with
developing empirical methodologies, the concern
Table 4. Level and trend of publication rate in the International Journal of Operations and Production Management
by topic
Level
Trend Low Medium High
Up Maintenance Quality Lean production/J ust-in-time
Research methodology Practice performance Manufacturing strategy
Cellular manufacturing Implementation
Flexibility
Performance measurement
Models Static Service
Flexible Manufacturing Systems/ Simulation
Computer Integrated Production Planning and
Advanced Technology
Manufacturing Inventory Control
Down Economic Order Quantity Manufacturing Resource Planning
Buffer stocks
Optimized Production Technology
Robotics
s20 C. A . Voss
in the UK is more about the possible lack of rigour
in research in this country.
Whereas the late 70s and early 80s were domi-
nated by new technologies such as robotics and
computer-integrated manufacture, and production
planning and inventory control systems such as
Manufacturing Resource Planning (MRP) and
OPT, from the mid 1980s operations management
was dominated by manufacturing strategy and by
J apan. The increasing understanding of the J apa-
nese influence on manufacturing can help us under-
stand the evolution of operations management.
From Taylor to Toyota - The Development of Lean
Production
The production management approaches of J apan-
ese companies have been given many names. In
J apan they were and are still known as Toyota
Production System (Sugimori et al., 1977). In the
West, the term just-in-time management has been
widely used. However, as it does not accurately
reflect the full scope of J apanese approaches, many
others have been used including continuous flow
manufacturing, world class manufacturing
(Schonberger, 1987) and most recently and prob-
ably the best term, lean production (Womack et
nl., 1990).
The evolution of lean production illustrates well
the current nature of operations management.
First, despite the novelty of the approaches it has
its roots in the core approaches underlying the area.
Taylor, the development of reproducible processes,
Henry Ford and others contributed to the devel-
opment of mass production that has dominated
much of this century. In moving beyond mass
production, lean production has drawn upon rather
than rejected much of the core. Some observers
have been struck by the degree to which traditional
industrial engineering approaches of measurement,
layout and job design underlie much of the detailed
development of new approaches in J apan. Single
minute exchange of dies (SMED), at the core of
batch size reduction and lean production, is a
process in the true tradition of industrial engine-
ering. The little discussed but highly influential
technique of total productive maintenance has its
roots firmly in the core of operations management.
Similarly the statistical methods of Shewhart,
developed by Deming and Ishikawa are at the
centre of quality management in lean production. It
was a Russian development, namely group tech-
nology that underpinned much of the move
towards cellular layout and design.
A key element in the development of lean
production has been the organizational side, and
in particular the role of teams and the individual.
In batch production, teamwork has becn an
essential ingredient in the successful move from
simple group technology to cellular manufacture.
SMED and total productive maintenance owe their
effectiveness to team-based approaches. New ways
of thinking about the roles and responsibilities of
individuals at all levels from top management to
the shop floor has been the basis of the move from
quality control to total quality management. The
convergence and rethinking of a number of core
areas of operations management, together with the
combination of new ways of organizing and
managing has led to the ability to develop pro-
cesses that are of high quality, predictable, reliablc
and flexible. This in turn has been a key enabler in
the move from mass to lean production. This is
illustrated in Figure 2.
This evolution illustrates three key elements of
operations management in the 1990s.
The Core. Operations management has a core that
is both developing continuously and provides a
strong input into new areas and approaches.
Teachers and researchers in the area ignore this
core at their peril.
The Interface. Many of the new developments in
the field come from the interface between opera-
tions management and other disciplines such as
behavioural science, information management and
strategy.
Convergence. New approaches such as lcan pro-
duction do not result from individual break-
throughs, but from the convergence of many new
and existing approaches.
Taking the perspective of Taylor to Toyota also
helps to highlight the distinctive character of
operations management. In our area, we think of
Taylor (and his contemporaries) in terms of the
contribution to the theory, science and practice of
the area. On the other hand, many behavioural
scientists and others think in terms of Taylorism,
the negative impacts of command and control
styles of management. Similarly, those concerned
with Taylorism are also concerned with J apaniza-
tion, the negative impact of new working methods.
Operations Management
s2 1
Reproducible
Processes
Industrial
Engineering+
Russia-GT +
Shewhart +
Processes
Quality Lean
Predictable -+- Production
Flexible
Relia ble
Organization
Figure 2. Evolution of lean production from Taylor to Toyota (SMED, single minute exchange of dies; TPM, total
productive maintenance; GT, group technology)
However, there is hardly a major technology or
innovation that does not have a social impact. The
distinctive contribution of operations management
should not be the neglect of the social side and
implementation, but rather it should, through in-
depth understanding of the operational core of
areas such as lean production, be able to work with
other disciplines in understanding the wider impact
of the introduction of new ways of managing
operations. The terms Taylorism and J apanization
can be seen as a reflection of the performance and
pervasiveness of their approaches. It is only because
that they are so operationally effective and widely
adopted that enough attention has been paid to
their social implications to merit their own names.
Operations Management as an Interface Discipline
In the previous section it was argued, in the context
of lean production, that operations management is
characterized by both a strong core and the
interfaces with other disciplines. This is demon-
strated in an ever increasing range of concerns of
the researcher in the area. The following illustrates
some of the recent areas of research based on
multiple disciplines.
Simultaneous Engineering. Research in this area has
focused on the process of developing new products
quickly and effectively. The key interfaces include
those with engineering where new processes such as
rapid prototyping are being developed; organiza-
tion where teamwork and communication under-
pin the area, and information management where
news systems such as computer-aided logistics
systems are being developed.
Business Process Redesign. Much of the work in
this area is being done in the information tech-
nology arena. But as Davenport and Short (1990)
argued, it is the new industrial engineering draw-
ing on the process management and design
disciplines of operations as well as information
technology and organizational redesign.
Mass Customization and Computer-Integrated
Manufacture. The growing sophistication of the
use of computer systems in manufacture has led to
the development of new approaches allowing high
variety at low or reasonable cost (Pine et al. , 1993;
Westbrook and Williamson, 1993).
The Virtual Factory. The use of information tech-
nology and the increasing sophistication of inter-
national logistics management, coupled with
flexible, customized manufacture has led to much
speculation about the possibility of developing the
virtual factory; the ability to configure a network of
plants and development capability to meet a specific
need or project (Davidow and Malone, 1993).
Performance Measurement. Performance measure-
ment has long been of concern to managers of
operations. Increasing criticism of the negative
effects of traditional accounting methods has led to
attempts to bring operational and accounting
approaches together. An example of this in service
industries is the work of Fitzgerald ef al. (1993).
s22 C. A. Voss
Stra tegy/Marketing
Figure 3.
Industrial
Engineering
Accounting
Economics
TQM
Purchasing
hai st i cs-
,--
Information
Management
Behaviour
Operations management (OM): the move to the interfaces (CIM, computer integrated manufacturing;
total quality management)
Service Management. The management of service
has for some time been recognized as a key inter-
face between marketing and operations. Because of
the simultaneity of production and consumption,
the two are not easy to separate.
Manufacturing Strategy. Writers in manufacturing
strategy (Skinner, 1969; Hayes and Wheelwright,
1984; Hill, 1985) have placed a strong focus on the
relationship between the market place, the compe-
titive strategies of an organization, and the
operational choices in structure and infrastructure.
Similar links are also being developed in operations
strategy in services (Heskett et al., 1994).
These are a subset of the interface areas in
operations management. Others include total
quality management, continuous improvement,
implementation of new technologies and the
competitive impact of operations capability (see
Figure 3).
Buzz Words or Paradigm Shifts?
Operations management is probably the prime
producer of three letter acronyms. We have seen
MRP, TQM, TPM, OPT, J IT, SPC to name but a
few. A frequent criticism is that many of these are
short-lasting fads, rather than enduring changes or
paradigm shifts. However, on examination it
would seem that most of them have endured,
TQM,
though not necessarily in the same form. A study
of manufacturing practices and performance in
Europe by Hanson et al. (1994) concluded that
world class firms did not adopt a subset of
practices, but the full set of what could be con-
sidered best practice. There would seem to be a life
cycle of new approaches. Initially, they are widely
communicated and adopted, often as part of a
programme or initiative, and often in isolation.
Considerable learning takes place, with necessary
modification and development, and if ineffective
they are discarded. During this process, we can
learn about the context and contingencies, under
what conditions they are appropriate. Some
evolve, in the case of MRP from materials require-
ments planning to manufacturing resource plan-
ning, and then revert. In this case it became clear
than under a lean production environment simple
MRP could be more effective.
Most importantly, programmes frequently
evolve from stand alone initiatives to being part
of the standard toolkit of operations. In doing so
their fit with each other becomes clearer and better
understood. In the best companies, new practices
become embedded in the way that they manage.
For example, few of the exemplars of total quality
management, use these words explicitly or have
total quality management programmes, rather they
have embedded the various practices and attitudes
that go to make up total quality management
(Binney, 1992).
Operations Management S23
it would seem that we are observing both buzz
words and paradigm shifts. New ideas and
practices become associated with buzz words and
programmes or initiatives; but in the long run, if
effective, the buzz words disappear and genuine
shifts in ways of thinking and working take place.
This is a process in which operations management
researchers have an important role to play.
2. Operations Management - Current
Issues
The Relationship with Industry
Operations management is very much an applied
discipline; unless its output influences, advises and
helps industry to improve it is not effective or of
value. Operations management has a symbiotic
relationship with industry. First, industry is a
major source of ideas, needs and issues and hence
problems to be worked on. Many operations
management researchers, strongly encouraged by
the principal funding bodies, look to industry for
research agendas. Second, industry can be a
laboratory. There are strong national contrasts in
this area. On the one hand, much US research
never takes place anywhere near an operation,
relying strongly on simulation and other analytical
methods. On the other hand, in Sweden massive
experimentation has been done in industry, a prime
example of which was the Volvo plant at Udevalla.
This was a massive, and ultimately unsuccessful
experiment, but one from which a large amount of
new knowledge has emerged (Engstrom and
Medbo, 1994). in the UK there is some use of
factories as laboratories. This particular aspect of
research has been fostered in the UK by the Science
and Engineering Research Council (now the
Engineering and Physical Science Research Coun-
cil). A prime requirement for funding is testing and
application in industry, often accompanied by a
how to do it work book.
This at first sight seems, and generally is
admirable. There are however a number of issues.
First, there is a danger that getting too close to
middle-rank companies may generate the wrong
research. It is possible for companies to indicate
needs to which there are already well developed
solutions. In contact with industry, researchers
must, on the one hand, distinguish between
genuinely unanswered questions, potentially novel
solutions and improvements; and on the other,
industrial issues and problems cause by lack of
diffusion of new knowledge or inability to imple-
ment new approaches by companies. The latter is
often common in the UK and other European
countries. A field study of 663 European companies
found that only about 4 per cent had effectively
adopted the current known best practice, and over
50 per cent were significantly behind in many areas
(Hanson et al., 1994). A result is that much research
funded in the UK may more accurately be
described as communication of existing knowledge
and support of implementation. Operations man-
agement academics must be prepared to be
intellectually honest when dealing with firms that
are slow adopters, poor implementors, poor
problem diagnosers or solution specifiers.
Another risk arises from research that seeks to
identify best practice through field study of the
operational determinants of performance. This
model has been at its most effective in the
automotive field, for example, the International
Motor Vehicle Programme (Womack et al. , 1990),
and in the work of Clark and Fujimoto (1991) on
new product development. However, this type of
research has two limitations. First, if conducted in
a purely UK or even European context, there may
not be sufficient firms from which to identify best
practice. Second, even when good practice can be
identified, unless there is real time dissemination
and/or a positive effort to build upon and improve
it, it may be yesterdays best practice by the time of
publication.
Despite these potential problems operations
management research by its nature must come
from and/or be tested and implemented in the field.
The global nature of operations and the multiple
sources of new ideas indicate that field studies
should be increasingly international in scope and
not confined to one country or region.
Raising the Impact of Operations Management
Research
The changes over the last 15 years in the way that
operations are managed have been massive, and
this has been reflected in major changes in product
and operational performance. However, it is
salutary to reflect that some of the most influential
books in the area have been written by people
outside the field such as economists. Such an
example is the book by Womack et al. (1990) on
lean production in the automotive industry. It has
S24 C. A. Voss
influenced senior managers in the industry as much
as any previous research; why is this so? It can be
argued that the first reason for this is that it has a
firm focus on the business outcome of new ways of
managing operations, a process-outcome ap-
proach. Empirically demonstrated relationships
between practice and operational and business
performance can have a high impact in the business
and academic community. A second reason for the
impact is that it was both global and thorough,
giving a greater validity to its results. There are a
number of lessons that we can learn in operations
management. High impact is likely to come from:
-- Linking process to outcome, in particular business
outcome. In part this means talking the language
of business. The influence of Hills (1985) manu-
facturing strategy work in the US is a reflection of
this.
-- Empirical and large-scale research; effective
process-outcome research cannot be done with
small samples. This is witnessed by the paucity of
research showing links between total quality
management and business performance.
- International research; comparisons between and
learning from a wide range of backgrounds are
likely to lead to richer and more valid results.
- Theory development; such research may revert to
benchmarking unless there is an underpinning of
theory testing and development.
- Multiple disciplines; as argued earlier, operations
management research is often conducted at the
interfaces with other disciplines such as informa-
tion management, industrial economics, account-
ing and behavioural science. Effective collabor-
ation can lead to greater impact.
The Need for Aggressive Agendas
As argued earlier, operations management research
in the UK has responded effectively to the agendas
of the last decade, and has evolved to take on board
the new agendas driven by the transfer of pre-
dominantly J apanese practices during the last 10
years. However in looking towards future research
agendas we should not take our eyes off our
international competitors. Todays research must
enable the UK and the rest of Europe to compete
with their competitors in the future 10 years. I t is
instructive to look at J apan. In a recent review of
J apanese manufacturing strategies, Yamashina
(1 994) indicated that there have been considerable
changes. First, the continuing strength of the yen
has placed enormous cost pressures on J apanese
firms. They see real competition coming, not from
the West, but from the new Asian tigers such as
Taiwan, Korea and Hong Kong. Their response
varies depending on the context of the firm. Central
to this is the search for ways of generating massive
cost reductions. This has led to a move away from
time-based competition and putting on hold
approaches such as mass customization. These
despite popular assertion have a cost attached to
them. Instead, research is focusing on how to take
costs out with radically simpler design, exploiting
new techniques such as total productive mainte-
nance and other new methods of manufacturing.
Targets of 30 per cent cost reduction over a 4 year
period have been quoted. Many J apanese organiza-
tions are rapidly moving to internationalize their
manufacturing operations. Other are also following
the well established route of keeping a substantial
technological lead in their products thus enabling
margins to be maintained despite the strong yen.
It is also instructive to look at manufacturing
strategies within the Asian tigers. The popular
belief is that they are primarily focusing on low
cost. This is a major misrepresentation. They have
had a history of low costs due to the wage levels of
the country. The focus in these countries is on
learning; the development of new skills and new
technologies. Large companies are massively in-
vesting in learning; for example Daewoo in Korea
has in a short period of time acquired the product
and process technology and capabilities necessary
to become a player in the world automotive
industry, and has recently announced plans to
produce 2 million vehicles per annum. Both large
and small manufacturing companies in countries
such as Korea, Singapore and Hong Kong are
involved in bilateral and more complex networks
with Original Equipment Manufactures (OEMs)
and suppliers in other countries. A major objective
for many of these companies is to learn through
these relationships so that they can develop the
technologies and skills to stand alone and compete
against their former customers and suppliers.
There may be as much to learn from the small
Asian company as from the J apanese giant.
The implications of the above are important. If
for example, Toyota was to reduce its product
costs by 30 per cent, what would be the impact on
Oprvations Management
Strategic
choices in
manufacturing
S25
Best
practice
European manufacturing? What research agendas
are needed to prepare for this? If small manufac-
turing enterprises (SMEs) in Singapore and Hong
Kong think globally and are able to use the supply
chain to learn rapidly, what are the research
implications with regards to UK SMEs. It could
be that we risk not being ambitious enough.
Through focusing on how to help companies, in
particular SMEs, adopt proven technologies in
order to survive, we neglect the fundamental
questions of how do we make our SMEs into
learning organizations that can compete globally.
Learning is beginning to be recognized as an
important focus for manufacturing (Leonard-
Barton, 1992). It is likely that research agendas
based on competing with the East are likely to be
more aggressive than those based on European
views alone.
Contingency
approaches
Internal and
external
consistency
Choice of
process
Process and
infrastructure
Focus
3. Some Future Directions
World class
manufacturing
Benchmarking
Process
re-engineering
TQM
Learning from
the J apanese
Continuous
improvement
Towards a Linked and Tested Theory of
Manufacturing Strategy
There is a need for continued research to provide
stronger empirical underpinning of current theo-
ries. This is beginning to be done in some areas
such as total quality management (Dean and
Bowen, 1994) but in others theory lags practice.
It has been argued elsewhere (Voss, 1995) that
manufacturing strategy is composed of a number of
separate elements: competing through manufactur-
ing, strategic choices in manufacturing (a contin-
gency approach) and best practice (see Figure 4).
Though some authors link parts of these, particu-
larly the first two, there is no clear overall theory of
manufacturing strategy linking all three. Most of
this theory has been developed from the evidence of
case studies. There is growing detailed empirical
evidence of best practice approaches, and for
example generic manufacturing strategies (Miller
and Roth, 1994), but overall there is little systematic
empirical research. Some key assertions such as
focus have not had good empirical testing; and
some of the contingent approaches have not moved
substantially beyond Woodward. There is a need to
develop both a more unified theory of manufactur-
ing strategy which reconciles more closely the
conflict between contingent approaches and best
practice approaches. The growing debate on
resource-based theories of strategic management
(Dierickx and Cool, 1989) may inform and in turn
may be influenced by manufacturing strategy.
Powell (1995) has reviewed total quality nianage-
ment in the context of resource-based theory. Much
of a firms resource is the capability of the opera-
tions, not just total quality management, but a wide
range of areas.
Exploring Contingencies
One of the main roles that operations management
researchers can play is to explore the contingencies
associated with new approaches and their imple-
mentation, see for example Benson et al. (1 99 1) in
the field of quality management. Study of manu-
facturing practices in Europe (Voss et al., 1995)
illustrates some potential contingencies that need
exploring. First, when examining the impact of the
site size, one finds that the level of adoption
increases with site size, whilst the level of perfor-
mance from implementing practices decreases. Is
this because new practices do not deliver? The
evidence is against this; in all areas studied,
adoption of best practice led to improved per-
formance, and overall over 50 per cent of opera-
tional performance could be explained in terms of
practice (see also Oliver et al., 1994). It raises two
Key
concepts
Three paradigms of
manufacturing strategy
Zompeting
:hrough
nanufacturing
3rder winners
(eysuccess
factors
Sapability
Generic
manufacturing
strategies
Shared vision
Process
Measurement
Figure 4. Composition of manufacturing strategy
(TQM, total quality management). Source: Voss (1995)
S26 C. A. Voss
questions: to what degree should practice be
contingent on the type of the firm, for example its
size; and to what degree do different firms have
different implementation agendas? At a different
level, Abo (1 994) describes what he calls the hybrid
factory; the J apanese factory in the US. He argues
that J apanese companies when building factories
overseas adapt their methods and management
styles to match the local context. Their work raises a
more general issue as to how the national manu-
facturing context shapes manufacturing choices.
Implementing Multiple Initiatives
Operations academics and practitioners continu-
ally develop new approaches, but without effective
implementation, even the best may have little
impact. Powell (1995) argues that
Both the anecdotal and statistical evidence suggest
that, although TQM can produce competitive
advantage, adopting the vocabularies, ideologies,
and tools promoted by TQM gurus and advocates
matters less than the intangible resources that make
TQM implementation successful.
There are a number of reasons why we must look
beyond a simple view of implementation. Hanson
et af. (1994) show that world class factories are
characterized by good practice in all areas. Bor-
rowing Hills terminology of order winners and
qualifiers, we can argue that having good practice
in all areas is a qualifying criterion for staying in
business. I f this is so, moving to this state invari-
ably requires companies to implement multiple
new approaches and technologies over a period of
time, and sometimes simultaneously. This raises
for the individual organization management ques-
tions such as where do we start, and in what order
do we implement new practices? On the one hand,
Ferdows and De Meyer (1990) have argued that, in
order to achieve lasting improvements in manu-
facturing, there is a correct sequence for imple-
mentation that starts with organizational change.
On the other, Voss et af. (1995) state that imple-
mentation agendas are contingent on the starting
point of the company. They argue that a factory
that is starting from a poor position will have as
the key question - what to do first; the factory that
has tried to implement without success one or more
initiatives will have an agenda that might include
implementation skills, alignment with the com-
panys market objectives and between initiatives.
To date most implementation research has
focused on single areas such as MRP, TQM or
CAD/CAM. However, the aforementioned evi-
dence implies the need to consider implementation
of multiple initiatives, and the need for different
implementation approaches depending on a com-
panys starting point. This, as yet, is not fully
explored.
Strategic Integration with Engineering
Companies are increasingly competing through
their ability to manage the whole cycle of product
realization and delivery from the initial concept
through to delivery and support at the customer.
Increasingly, both the cost and quality of a
companys products are determined, not in the
manufacturing process, but in its design and its
components. They are doing this through mana-
ging an integrated company, not a set of separate
functions. This raises a major challenge to the field
of operations management. There are now increas-
ingly strong arguments for seeing engineering and
manufacturing together as a single unit in devel-
oping the operations capability of the firm. Manu-
facturing firms are increasingly thinking in terms of
and competing through their manufacturing sys-
tems, not manufacturing alone. Manufacturing
strategy approaches will need to evolve to be fully
integrated with engineering. This will require
amongst other aspects the identification of the
key strategic choices in engineering and the factors
that determine these choices.
Service - Learning from Marketing
In the 1980s, led by Chase and others, there was a
major emphasis on transferring the knowledge
base of manufacturing to service, and to building a
distinctive view of the operational approaches in a
service environment. This was followed by the
growing identification of the service elements of
manufacturing, and the realization that service
could add value regardless of context. Over the
past decade a distinctive discipline of service
management has begun to emerge, informed as
much by marketing, organizational behaviour and
strategy as by operations. Service management
because of the simultaneity of production and
consumption has always been cross-disciplinary.
The challenge in operations will be to build on the
work done in other areas. For example in
Operations Management
S27
marketing, new approaches to quality manage-
ment have been developed (Zeithaml et at., 1990).
These are not always consistent with more
established total quality management approaches.
For example, the literature on service recovery
contrasts with the manufacturing zero-defects
approach. To date, although service quality con-
cepts are well known, there has been remarkably
little transfer from service management to tradi-
tional operations management. Another opportu-
nity is in the models such as those developed by
Heskett et al. (1994). Their service-profit chain
model presents a service-based equivalent to
manufacturing strategy models. As with manufac-
turing strategy, it is based on case research and
presents an opportunity for more extensive em-
pirical research to validate and extend it.
Conclusions
Core Reinforcement and New Interfaces
In reviewing the aforementioned discussion, we
can return to our previous view of operations
management - that it has a core, that it works at
the interface and that convergence of multiple
ideas lead to new approaches:
The Core Reinforced. Operations managements
heart lies in its core, the development and manage-
ment of value-adding processes, and the tools,
techniques and methods to support this. If opera-
tions management is to continue its role it must not
neglect its core, but must continually search for
new approaches and improvement of its existing
ones. It is only from the strength of its core can
operations management contribute effectively to
the existing and emerging interface areas. The
current scope of the core can be illustrated by the
list of topics that reviewers of the Journal of
Operations Management have been invited to
express interests and expertise in 1995. These are
listed in the Appendix.
New Interfaces. Many of the new interface areas
have already been explored in this paper. They
include: the exploration of contingencies in manu-
facturing strategy and implementation; improve-
ment programme choice and manufacturing; the
relationship between practice and performance in
both service and manufacturing; learning through
international networks, particularly at the SME
level and strategic integration with engineering.
Other possible areas include: building on current
performance measurement work with accountants
in the development of performance planning and
target costing; and the refining of process manage-
ment, in particular bridging the potential divide in
this area as applied in total quality management and
business process redesign. These are summarized in
Figure 5.
Convergence. New areas for convergence will
emerge, probably with information management as
one of the key integrators. Networking may
Strategy/Marke ting
S Engineering
lnte ith
Organizational
Behaviour
Management
Figure 5. Future interfaces in operations management
S26
C. A. Voss
become a platform upon which convergence of the
1990s will occur. A further agenda may be generic
research into the mechanisms whereby the core and
interface areas operations management can be
linked. This will help in exploiting the core of
Operations management to the full.
In summary, operations management sought to
respond to the challenges put forward in the 1980s
and in doing so has created new agendas for the
1990s. To be successful, research will build theory
and test it; it will try to influence business leaders as
well as plant managers and engineers; it will con-
tinually build its core and use this as a platform for
being an effective partner at the interface. Opera-
tions management has always been the guardian
within the business school context of the manage-
ment of the value-adding processes. These have
evolved continuously from Taylor to Toyota, and
are continuing to evolve. If Frederick Winslow
Taylor was alive today, he would approve.
Acknowledgements
The author wishes to acknowledge the funding of
the Engineering and Physical Science Research
Council who supported research on which this
paper is based.
References
Abo, T. (ed.) (1994). The Hybrid Factory. Oxford Uni-
versity Presxs, Oxford.
Amoako-Gympah, K. and J . R. Meredith (1989). The
Operations Management Research Agenda: an Up-
date, Journal of Operations Management. 8(3),
Announcements on Empirical/field based Methodolo-
gies in J OM, Journal of Operations Management,
1989, 8(4), pp. 294-296.
Benson, F. George, J ayant V. Saraph and Roger G.
Schroder (1 99 1). The Effects of Organisation Context
on Quality Management: An Empirical Investigation,
Management Science, 37(9), Sept. pp. 1107-1 124.
Binney, George (1992). Making Quality Work, Lessons
,from Europes Leading Companies. Economist intelli-
gence unit, special report no. 8655, London.
Buffa, E. S. (1980). Research in Operations Manage-
ment, Journal of Operations Management, 1( I ),
Chase, R. (1980). A Classification and Evaluation of
Research in Operations Management, Journal of
Operations Management, 1(1), pp. 9-14.
Clark, K. and T. Fujimoto (1991). Product Development
pp. 250-262.
pp. 1-8.
Performance. Harvard Business School Press, Boston.
Davenport, T. E. and J . E. Short (1990). The New
Industrial Engineering: Information Technology and
Business Process Redesign, Sloan Management
Review, 31(4), pp. 11-27.
Davidow, W. H. and M. S. Malone (1993). The Virtual
Corporation, Structuring and Revitalising the Corpora-
tion f or the 21st Century. Harper-Collins, New York.
Dean, J ames W. J r and David E. Bowen (1994).
Management Theory and Total Quality: Improving
Research and Practice Through Theory Develop-
ment, Academy qf Management Review, 19(3),
Dierickx, 1. and K. Cool (1989). Asset Stock Replace-
ment and Sustainability of Competitive Advantage,
Management Science, 35, pp. 1 5041 5 1 1.
Engstrom, T. and L. Medbo (1994). Intra-group Work
Patterns in Final Assemble of Motor Vehicles,
International Journal of Operations and Production
Management, 14(3), pp. 101-1 14.
Ferdows, K. and A. De Meyer (1990). Lasting
Improvements in Manufacturing, in Search of a New
Theory, Journal of Operations Management, 9(2),
Fitzgerald, L. et a!. (1993). Performance Measurement in
Service Industries. Chartered Institute of Management
Accountants, London.
Flynn, B. B. et al. (1990). Empirical Research Methods
in Operations Management, Journal of Operations
Management, 9(2), pp. 250-284.
Hanson, P., C. A. Voss, K. Blackmon and B. Oak (1994).
Made in Europe. IBM/London Business School,
November.
Hayes, R. and S. Wheelwright (1984). Restoring Our
Competitive Edge. Wiley, New York.
Heskett, J . L., T. 0. J ones, G. W. Loveman, W. E. Sasser
and L. A. Schlesinger (1994). Putting the Service-
Profit Chain to Work, Harvard Business Review,
March-April, pp. 164-174.
Heylen, K. and R. van Dierdonck (1994). The Evolution
of Research in Operations Management. Paper
presented at European Operations Management
Association, first annual conference, Cambridge, J une
Hill, T. (1985). Manvfacturing Strategy. Macmillan,
Basingstoke.
Leonard-Barton, D. (1992). The Factory as a Learning
Laboratory, Sloan Management Review, 34( l),
Meredith, J . (1993). Theory Building Through Concept-
ual Methods, International Journal of Operations and
Production Management, 13(5), pp. 3-1 1.
Meredith, J ., I. Raturi, K. Amoako-Gympah and B.
Kaplan (1989). Alternative Research Paradigms in
Operations Management, Journal o f Operations
Management, 8(4), pp. 297-326.
Miller, J . G. et al. (1981). Productions/Operations
Management, and Agenda for the 1980s, Decision
Sciences, 12(4), pp. 547-571.
Miller, J . G. and A. V. Roth (1994). A Taxonomy of
Manufacturing Strategies, Management Science,
pp. 392-418.
pp. 168-184.
27-29.
pp. 23-38.
40(3), pp. 285-304.
Operations Management S29
Minor, E. et al. (1994). A Review of Empirical
Manufacturing Strategy Studies, International Jour-
nal of Operations and Production Management, 14( l),
Neely, A. ( 1 993). Production/Operations Management:
Research Process and Content during the 1980s,
International Journal of Operations and Production
Management, 13(1), pp. 5-18.
Oliver, N., R. Delbridge, D. J ones and J . Lowe (1994).
World Class Manufacturing: Further Evidence in the
Lean Production Debate, British Journal of Manage-
ment, 5, J une, pp. 53-64.
Pine, B. J ., B. Victor and A. C. Boynton (1993). Making
Class Customization Work, Harvard Business Re-
view, Sept-Oct, pp. 108-119.
Platts, K. W. ( 1 993). A Process Approach to Research-
ing Manufacturing Strategy, International .Journal of
Operations and Production Management, 13(8), 4-17.
Powell, T. C. (1995). Total Quality Management as
Competitive Advantage: a Review and Empirical
Study, Strategic Management Journal, 16, pp. 15-37.
Schonberger, R. (1987). World Class Manufacturing: The
Lessons of Simplicity Applied. The Free Press, New
York.
Skinner, W. (1969). Manufacturing - Missing Link in
Corporate Strategy, Harvard Business Review, May-
J une, pp. 136-145.
Sugimori, Y., K. Kushnohi, F. Cho and S. Uchikawa
pp. 5-25.
(1977). Toyota Production System and Kanban
System: Materialization of J ust-in-Time and Re-
spect-For-Human System, International Journal of
Production Research, 15(6), pp. 533-569.
Swamidass, P. M. (1991). Empirical Science: the New
Frontier in Operations Management Research,
Academy of Management Review, 16(4), pp. 193-214.
Voss, C. A. (1984). Production/Operations Manage-
ment - a Key Discipline and Area for Research,
Omega, 12(3), pp. 309-319.
Voss, C. A. (1995). Alternative Paradigms for Manu-
facturing Strategy, International Journal of Operations
and Production Management, 15, pp. 5-16.
Voss, C. A,, K. Blackmon and B. Oak (1995). Competi-
tiveness of European Manufacturing, Biisines~ Strat-
egy Review, 6(1), pp. 1-25.
Westbrook, R. and P. Williamson (1993). Mass-
Customization: J apans New Frontier, European
Journal of Management, 11(1), pp. 3845.
Womack, J . P., D. T. J ones and D. Roos (1990). The
Machine that Changed the World, MacMillan, New
York.
Yamashina, H. (1994). J apanese Manufacturing Strat-
egy to Compete with Tigers. In: Tomorrows Best
Practice. Foundation for Manufacturing Industry,
London, December.
Zeithaml, V. A., A. Parasuraman and L. Leonard (1990).
Delivering Service Quality. Free Press, New York.
Appendix
Core Areas of Operations Management
List of topic areas for reviewers of the Journal of Operations Management (1995)
Automation
Facility location
Group technology
Kanban
Logistics
Production planning
Quality management
Statistical process control
Aggregate planning
Cellular manufacturing
Focused factory
Forecasting
J ob design
Manufacturing control systems
Materials requirements planning
Process industries
Repetitive manufacture
Staffing
Work measurement
Assembly line balancing
Facility design
Flexibility
J ob shop scheduling
Master production scheduling
Product development
Purchasing
Shop floor control
Yield management
Decision/risk/utility/AHP
Probability/statistics processes
Programming/optimization
Capacity management
Flexible manufacturing systems
J ust-in-time
Maintenance/reliability
Materials management
Project management
Service operations
Warehousing
Batch manufacturing
Environmental issues
Flow shop
International issues
Lot sizing
Mathematical programming
Process design
Personnel/workforce/shift
scheduling
Safety/health issues
Theory of constraints
Re-engineering
Dispatching
Facility layout
Inventory management
Lead-time
Operations strategy
Productivity
Scheduling sequencing
Vehicle scheduling
Queuing
Heuristics
Regression/factor/cluster analysis
Simulation